Related

The European Union likes to cast itself as a champion of human rights, both
at home and beyond its borders. So why is the E.U. allowing European firms
to export thumbscrews, stun guns and other devices that could be used for
torture to countries with spotty human-rights records?

According to the human-rights watchdog Amnesty International, businesses
making these types of implements are flourishing in Europe and exporting
their products in spite of an E.U. ban on the trade. In a report released
earlier this month, Amnesty said firms in Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic
and Italy were selling items like electroshock "sleeves" and "cuffs" capable of delivering 50,000-volt shocks, spiked batons and fixed wall restraints to at least nine countries, including Pakistan, China and the U.A.E. Amnesty, which co-published the report with the London-based Omega
Research Foundation, says the companies are using legal loopholes to evade
restrictions put in place after the E.U. passed a law in 2006 banning the
sale of torture equipment. (See "20 Reasons to Love the E.U.")

One tactic is to simply relabel torture implements that are on the E.U.'s
list of banned products. For example, electroshock weapons like stun belts
 which are placed around detainees' limbs and emit a shock if they get
out of line  are sometimes renamed "stun cuffs," Amnesty says. Another
scheme is to sell "dual-use" items, such as leg shackles and stick batons,
which are allowed to be exported for policing and security purposes. The
trade in dual-use products is meant to be closely monitored, but Amnesty
says little is being done to make sure the devices are not being used for
torture.

Amnesty executive officer David Nichols, who co-authored the report, says
E.U. governments are failing to live up to their responsibilities. "There
does not appear to be any political will to deal with this problem and close
the loopholes," he says. "The 2006 rules were a landmark move to counter
torture, but the E.U. isn't doing enough to make sure they work properly." (See pictures of the global financial crisis.)

Only a few manufacturers are named in the report. An official at one company
known to produce such items, the Belgian firm Sirien, denied any wrongdoing
in an interview with TIME. Sirien makes products like electric-shock stun
shields and S-200 projectile stun guns  devices that export manager
Erwin Lafosse insists save lives. "If you want to ban electroshock pistols,
then policemen will have to use firearms to defend themselves," he says.
"The problem with Amnesty International is that they only see the bad side
to everything. Yes, these can be used to torture someone, but so can all
sorts of ordinary devices like knives, forks and spoons." Nevertheless, the
company removed the stun shield and stun gun from its website after the
Amnesty report was released.

Frank Coll, head of another firm in Spain called Nidec, which was named
in the report, says his company removed its stun cuffs from its website
after receiving a letter from Amnesty International alerting it to the new
law in 2006. "That was the end of the story for us  we have not sold
this item at all," he says. (See TIME's coverage of the 2010 World Economic Forum.)

The report is alarming politicians enough for the European Parliament to
intervene: members are expected to raise the issue at the body's next
session in April. "The E.U.'s inaction is unacceptable and I'm bitterly
disappointed," says British M.P. Richard Howitt. "It's
complacency: the E.U.'s member states and institutions have taken their eye
off the ball." Heidi Hautala, who chairs the parliament's subcommittee on
human rights, has also pledged to force the E.U. member states to close the
loopholes. "E.U. governments simply failed to take the rules seriously
enough," she says. "It is shameful  the E.U. can talk but not deliver.
It cannot portray itself as a human-rights model to anyone until it can put
its house in order."

But for some observers, it's naive to expect the E.U. to maintain a perfect
record on human rights. "It would not be the first time the E.U. is going
against its values, and its own interests," says Andrew Stroehlein, a
spokesman for the International Crisis Group. Stephan Keukeleire, a
professor of foreign policy at Leuven University in Belgium, points out that
any E.U. claims of ethical foreign policy were already undermined by the
fact that its members are among the biggest arms exporters in the world. "We
too often talk about the moral side of our actions, and we too often say we
have a superior Western foreign policy, when obviously commercial
considerations come into play. Remember, most of Saddam Hussein's weapons
technology came from the West," he says.

But Keukeleire is hopeful that the mood is changing, in part thanks to
Amnesty's report. "At least now there is more of a recognition of the
problem. But it will take time."